Low Hop Bing J:

Application

[1] The respondents, a firm of solicitors ("the solicitors") vide application by way of summons in chambers in encl (5) filed pursuant to O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 seek an order that the petitioner's petition in encl (2) be struck out with costs on the ground that:

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) (not relevant); or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

Factual Background

[2] In or about the month of October 2003, the solicitors were retained by the petitioner to represent the petitioner in four civil actions viz Melaka Sessions Court Summonses No. 52-1411 to 1413-2003; and Melaka Labour Court Summons No. 324/2003 (collectively, "the four civil actions").

[3] The four civil actions were in connection with foreign workers from India, who had alleged inter alia breach of contract on the part of the petitioner.

[4] On 1 November 2003, the petitioner asked the solicitors for the total cost of the retainer for the four civil actions.

[5] The solicitors vide letter dated 2 December 2003 informed the petitioner that the legal fee for the Labour Court Summons was RM15,000 and for the Sessions Court matter, the legal fee was from RM15,000 to RM20,000.

[6] From time to time, interim bills sent by the solicitors to the petitioner had been settled by the petitioner.

[7] From 20 August 2004 to 3 November 2004, the petitioner received gross bills amounting to RM45,684.35 for the four civil actions.

[8] On 7 December 2004, the petitioner received another bill for RM1,040 together with the solicitors' letter dated 30 November 2004.

[9] The petitioner alleged having made a total payment of RM48,532.80 to the solicitors as at 9 July 2004.

[10]Vide letter dated 15 February 2005, the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the solicitors' bills.

[11] The petitioner vide letter dated 18 April 2005 stated that the petitioner was agreeable to a taxation of the costs as a resolution to the disputed fees.

[12] However, on 31 May 2005, the solicitors served on the petitioner a notice under s. 218 of the Companies Act 1965 ("the s. 218 notice") demanding payment of the sum of RM49,138.14 ("the disputed fee") within 21 days thereof, failing which the solicitors would commence winding-up petition against the petitioner.

[13] The petitioner vide letter dated 14 June 2005 vehemently denied the solicitors' bills and requested the solicitors to withdraw the s. 218 notice.

[14] On 8 June 2005, the petitioner deposited the disputed fee with the petitioner's solicitors Messrs Tee & Edwin, to be released only upon taxation of the disputed fee.

[15] Pursuant to s. 126 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (s. 126), the petitioner filed this petition in encl (2) on 14 July 2005.

No Reasonable Cause Of Action

[16] Learned counsel Miss Tan Hwee Hwee, assisted by Mr. Teh Hong Jet, submitted for the solicitors that the petitioner has no reasonable cause of action as the petitioner was out of time under s. 126(1) since the solicitors' bills dated 17 August 2004, 22 October 2004 and 30 November 2004 were received by the petitioner on 20 August 2004, 27 October 2004 and 7 December 2004 respectively, while this petition was only filed on 14 July 2005. The following authorities were cited:

1. Peng Bee Sdn Bhd v. Teoh Liang Teh & Ors [2000] 4 CLJ 825 CA; and

2. Vun Chun Fah & Anor v. Telekom Malaysia Berhad HC.

[17] Opportunity was afforded to the petitioner's learned counsel Mr. William Edwin to file his written submission but he did not appear to have availed himself of that opportunity.

[18] The issue for determination by me is whether the petitioner is barred by the limitation period to present the petition. The relevant portion of s. 126(1) merits reproduction as follows:

126(1) An order for the taxation of a bill of costs delivered by any advocate and solicitor may be obtained by a petition as a matter of cour